We Have A Fatwa: Imam Gets In Deeper than He Think$. "I didn't know there were 12," sez cheapskate cleric! Rushdie still in hot water: "Ayatollyah so," egghead claims
Tim Cavanaugh | February 17, 2006, 5:58pm
A Pakistani cleric has finally put some money down in the intoonfada. Anybody looking to earn more than $12 million and 12 cars merely has to track down and kill the authors of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, prayer leader at the Mohabat Khan mosque in Peshawar, offers $25,000 and a ride for the assassin:
He also said a local jewelers' association would give $1 million but no representative of the association was available to confirm it had made the offer.
"This is a unanimous decision of by all imams (prayer leaders) of Islam that whoever insults the prophet deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize," Qureshi told about 1,000 people outside the mosque after Friday prayers.
Qureshi did not name any cartoonist in his announcement and did not appear to be aware that 12 different people had drawn the pictures.
Yeah, well when I show up with all 12 heads in a jumbo cooler, he'd better pay up, is all I'm saying.
Note on the title: I suspect the reward offered is not technically a fatwa, but somebody with a better understanding of Islamic jurisprudence can clear that up. Happily, however, the Martyrs Foundation of Iran has now announced that "Imam Khomeini's fatwa on the apostate Salman Rushdie will remain in force for eternity," and that go-getters can pick up a cool $2.8 million for bagging the controversial author. Daniel Pipes saw that one coming nearly eight years ago.
Special American-Fatwa bonus: Complete coverage of the unfolding Daily Illini controversy.
Ken Shultz | February 19, 2006, 6:05pm | #
As I suggested above, the situation would be different, ethically, if the contract was on Macklin's head. Still, if you can find an instance where, say, a mob boss, for instance,
should be let off because the contract he put out was in response to a contract placed on him by a rival, then I'll reconsider.
The problem is that this isn't an appropriate level of response to people who are clearly our enemies.
While we certainly have enemies in Pakistan, it isn't clear to me that the people of Pakistan are our enemies. ...one easy way to push those that aren't over the edge is to put prices on Pakistani heads.
Your arguments seem to boil down to a couple of basic concepts. 1) That Muslims are unworthy of the respect our culture affords other people and 2) that whatever is lost by descending to the level of criminals is of no strategic value. This is the logic of an angry mob. ...form an angry mob if you like, but don't expect me not to point and say, "Look, an angry mob!"
There may be peace loving Muslims, but Islam is not inherently a peace loving religion because that strain has never really flowered out. The historical forces that would have allowed it to bloom have never occurred.
There's no room left for anybody to say "oh, that's just a few isolated Muslims". Three riots in three different countries -- from Pakistan to North Africa -- is not a sign of a few deviants. It's an indication of a systemic problem.
Although our cultures have interacted over time, you're right, theirs is very different from ours. I wish they respected freedom of the press as much as they venerate the Prophet, but, apparently, that just isn't the case. Manipulating other people's cultures to be more to our liking, however, seems a fool's errand to me--it's been tried before, you know? See the history of "Western" interference in India, Southeast Asia and Africa during the 19th and 20th centuries for examples.
Manipulation of economies from above is impossible to do well, there are just too many variables, unintended consequences, etc. I think there are many more variables influencing the composition of culture, indeed, economics is just one factor. ...and so many of the problems we're facing now seem a direct result, I think, of earlier efforts to do just that. From the "let's end slavery in Sudan" to "let's bring 'em "civilization", this has all been tried before.
...but, for the sake of argument, let's assume I'm wrong about that. Tell me, how will Macklin putting a contract on a Pakistani Imam make the adoption of our cultural values by Pakistanis more desirable?
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
